Film Review: “Homo Toxicus”
“Homo Toxicus,” director: Carole Poliquin, released: 2008 One of the most interesting conflicts featured in “Homo Toxicus” is the conflict between science and industry. Poliquin introduced viewers to Dr. Tyrone Hayes as one of the leading researchers on the affects of Atrazine on frogs. Poliquin did not clearly explain what Atrazine was, but perhaps this was intentional. I was prompted to look up more about Atrazine and found two interesting websites. The first one was from Syngenta, which is the company that produces Atrazine, and on the website the success of Atrazine as an herbicide is exclaimed. If you follow the hyperlink you will notice that the right hand side of the page offers an “expert view” which discredits research by Dr. Tyrone Hayes on the affects of Atrazine on frogs’ reproductive systems. However, if you review Dr. Tyrone Hayes’ experience with amphibians you will notice that he seems highly intelligent, very knowledgeable about amphibians, very experienced at conducting research, and at one point in time Syngenta deemed him skilled enough to hire him as a consultant. When Hayes’ research showed that Atrazine had negative effects on frogs and their endocrine systems, Syngenta cut funding for the research Hayes was conducting for them. Now Syngenta has to do some damage control and post stuff on their website about how the EPA doesn’t think Hayes’ results are conclusive. After watching “Food, Inc.” I am under the impression that the EPA representatives deciding whether or not Atrazine should be banned probably have connections with Syngenta and more probably, do not have the background and scientific training equivalent to Hayes. Hayes’ difficulty with allowing the conclusions of his research to resonate as true is one example of a larger sustainability problem. It is a problem that the people who are reviewing research results and are in positions to make decisions that can incorporate the results and improve our life have devious interests (interest ulterior to their job of protecting the health of the environment and society). A larger but more circuitous sustainability problem engulfing the problem of their devious interests is establishing which interests are “devious.” For example is it impossible to ban Atrazine at this time because of the magnitude of its effects on food production and lack of alternatives? The central argument of “Homo Toxicus” is that toxic chemicals should be eliminated from our lives because deleterious effects are surfacing as a result of exposure to even trace amount of the chemicals. I would have to see a movie whose central argument is the collapse of our food supply due to banning the toxic chemicals it currently relies on. Both sides require the ability to imagine a world with or without toxic chemicals. Determining which course of action can best protect lives is difficult to deduce.
The ability to imagine a changed world is another sustainability issue. Towards the end of the movie Poliquin talked with some policy makers about the use of the precautionary principle. One man associated with a Canadian regulatory group stated that “[banning is not the best risk management tool…mitigating exposure to risk is favored.]” I think the use of the precautionary principle often requires imagining a life different than the status quo. Complacency with current cancer rates and the morphing of boy frogs to girls is obviously great enough to inhibit policy makers from imagining taking action that could change this.
Poliquin’s interviews with scientists provided compelling evidence that we are exposing ourselves to chemicals that are damaging us. One scientist talked about a plastic molecule that at only 0.2 parts per million can change cell signaling which leads to increased risk of breast cancer, prostate cancer and insulin resistance. This plastic molecule is currently allowed at 50 parts per million! Other interviews confirmed that 90% of cancers are a complex disease meaning that there are many environmental factors involved, many genes included, and it takes 20-25 years to develop. These scientific facts persuade viewers that the level of toxins we are exposed to really are a problem.
Poliquin discussed how species that have become endangered or extinct from exposure to toxins have a much shorter reproductive cycle than humans. She visited communities with increased rates of miscarriages, with men who had damaged sperm, and with births of sexually deformed babies. However, I am not convinced that birth rates will decrease to the point that the human species will go extinct. I think that we will be forced to reduce our exposure to toxins before the inability to reproduce becomes an eminent problem.
The only intervention implied by Poliquin is to use consumer status to choose products that do not contain toxic substance. However, this intervention cannot be executed completely. In nature, toxins exist as well. Tension, disturbances and conflicts are inherent to this world. Poliquin acknowledged this fact by perpetuating the fire theme throughout the movie and discussing the conflict between progress and self destruction. Poliquin recognizes that there will always be a conflict between progress and self destruction but asserts that society currently favors the self-destructive side and she advocates that at this point we should revise the status quo and therefore “progress” towards a healthier society. The path towards sustainability, or this healthier society, will inevitably result in side effects that prove to be self destructive and will initiate progress towards a new and improved life. This cycle is evident in life.
Poliquin visited a town near a processing plant and that had a skewed sex ratio. In this town two times as many girls were being born as boys. These citizens’ stories were sad and established that humans are in fact being effected by all these new chemicals. However I was left wondering about the relationship between the processing plant and citizens. Poliquin did not reveal what factors have allowed the processing plants to continue endangering the surrounding community.
At one point in the movie Poliquin offers a toxic buffet to Canadian citizens. Upon the realization that everything is toxic, one man asks “Sooo…what am I going to eat?” Because I share this sentiment I do not want to seek out any more information about the toxics around me. If something is brought to my attention as having avoidable toxic chemicals then I will be conscious about avoiding it. I do not want to look up any more toxic information.
“Homo Toxicus” appeals to people who prefer to reduce their risk of dying of a chronic disease. The movie is also especially appealing to people with an interest in medicine. Professionals in the health care field will have to deal with the increase in sexual deformities as well as the increase in chronic disease on a regular basis. Because this movie also focused on the ability to reproduce and the toxin we are “bequeathing” our children, this movie could really scare someone that is considering or about or have a baby.
Poliquin did an excellent job of linking environmental problems together in a cohesive and compelling manner. She presented the case of deformed frogs in order to prove that harmed animals are simply indicators of impending harm to humans. She did a great job of featuring and subtly mocking some “expert” who rationalized why pesticide induced frog deformity cannot be extrapolated to humans. She did a great job of connecting what we input to the environment, the health of animals and plants, and the health of people. “Homo Toxicus” weaves together creative graphics, personal stories, and scientific facts to produce a compelling piece of environmental media.
Sources
Hayes, Tyrone. "Our World, Our Future." Atrazinelovers. Web. 25 Feb 2010. <http://www.atrazinelovers.com/m0.html>.
"Leading Causes of Death." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Web. 25 Feb 2010. <http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/FASTATS/lcod.htm>. Syngenta United States. Web. 25 Feb 2010. <http://www.syngenta-us.com/home.aspx>.
“Homo Toxicus,” director: Carole Poliquin, released: 2008
One of the most interesting conflicts featured in “Homo Toxicus” is the conflict between science and industry. Poliquin introduced viewers to Dr. Tyrone Hayes as one of the leading researchers on the affects of Atrazine on frogs. Poliquin did not clearly explain what Atrazine was, but perhaps this was intentional. I was prompted to look up more about Atrazine and found two interesting websites. The first one was from Syngenta, which is the company that produces Atrazine, and on the website the success of Atrazine as an herbicide is exclaimed. If you follow the hyperlink you will notice that the right hand side of the page offers an “expert view” which discredits research by Dr. Tyrone Hayes on the affects of Atrazine on frogs’ reproductive systems. However, if you review Dr. Tyrone Hayes’ experience with amphibians you will notice that he seems highly intelligent, very knowledgeable about amphibians, very experienced at conducting research, and at one point in time Syngenta deemed him skilled enough to hire him as a consultant. When Hayes’ research showed that Atrazine had negative effects on frogs and their endocrine systems, Syngenta cut funding for the research Hayes was conducting for them. Now Syngenta has to do some damage control and post stuff on their website about how the EPA doesn’t think Hayes’ results are conclusive. After watching “Food, Inc.” I am under the impression that the EPA representatives deciding whether or not Atrazine should be banned probably have connections with Syngenta and more probably, do not have the background and scientific training equivalent to Hayes. Hayes’ difficulty with allowing the conclusions of his research to resonate as true is one example of a larger sustainability problem. It is a problem that the people who are reviewing research results and are in positions to make decisions that can incorporate the results and improve our life have devious interests (interest ulterior to their job of protecting the health of the environment and society). A larger but more circuitous sustainability problem engulfing the problem of their devious interests is establishing which interests are “devious.” For example is it impossible to ban Atrazine at this time because of the magnitude of its effects on food production and lack of alternatives? The central argument of “Homo Toxicus” is that toxic chemicals should be eliminated from our lives because deleterious effects are surfacing as a result of exposure to even trace amount of the chemicals. I would have to see a movie whose central argument is the collapse of our food supply due to banning the toxic chemicals it currently relies on. Both sides require the ability to imagine a world with or without toxic chemicals. Determining which course of action can best protect lives is difficult to deduce.
The ability to imagine a changed world is another sustainability issue. Towards the end of the movie Poliquin talked with some policy makers about the use of the precautionary principle. One man associated with a Canadian regulatory group stated that “[banning is not the best risk management tool…mitigating exposure to risk is favored.]” I think the use of the precautionary principle often requires imagining a life different than the status quo. Complacency with current cancer rates and the morphing of boy frogs to girls is obviously great enough to inhibit policy makers from imagining taking action that could change this.
Poliquin’s interviews with scientists provided compelling evidence that we are exposing ourselves to chemicals that are damaging us. One scientist talked about a plastic molecule that at only 0.2 parts per million can change cell signaling which leads to increased risk of breast cancer, prostate cancer and insulin resistance. This plastic molecule is currently allowed at 50 parts per million! Other interviews confirmed that 90% of cancers are a complex disease meaning that there are many environmental factors involved, many genes included, and it takes 20-25 years to develop. These scientific facts persuade viewers that the level of toxins we are exposed to really are a problem.
Poliquin discussed how species that have become endangered or extinct from exposure to toxins have a much shorter reproductive cycle than humans. She visited communities with increased rates of miscarriages, with men who had damaged sperm, and with births of sexually deformed babies. However, I am not convinced that birth rates will decrease to the point that the human species will go extinct. I think that we will be forced to reduce our exposure to toxins before the inability to reproduce becomes an eminent problem.
The only intervention implied by Poliquin is to use consumer status to choose products that do not contain toxic substance. However, this intervention cannot be executed completely. In nature, toxins exist as well. Tension, disturbances and conflicts are inherent to this world. Poliquin acknowledged this fact by perpetuating the fire theme throughout the movie and discussing the conflict between progress and self destruction. Poliquin recognizes that there will always be a conflict between progress and self destruction but asserts that society currently favors the self-destructive side and she advocates that at this point we should revise the status quo and therefore “progress” towards a healthier society. The path towards sustainability, or this healthier society, will inevitably result in side effects that prove to be self destructive and will initiate progress towards a new and improved life. This cycle is evident in life.
Poliquin visited a town near a processing plant and that had a skewed sex ratio. In this town two times as many girls were being born as boys. These citizens’ stories were sad and established that humans are in fact being effected by all these new chemicals. However I was left wondering about the relationship between the processing plant and citizens. Poliquin did not reveal what factors have allowed the processing plants to continue endangering the surrounding community.
At one point in the movie Poliquin offers a toxic buffet to Canadian citizens. Upon the realization that everything is toxic, one man asks “Sooo…what am I going to eat?” Because I share this sentiment I do not want to seek out any more information about the toxics around me. If something is brought to my attention as having avoidable toxic chemicals then I will be conscious about avoiding it. I do not want to look up any more toxic information.
“Homo Toxicus” appeals to people who prefer to reduce their risk of dying of a chronic disease. The movie is also especially appealing to people with an interest in medicine. Professionals in the health care field will have to deal with the increase in sexual deformities as well as the increase in chronic disease on a regular basis. Because this movie also focused on the ability to reproduce and the toxin we are “bequeathing” our children, this movie could really scare someone that is considering or about or have a baby.
Poliquin did an excellent job of linking environmental problems together in a cohesive and compelling manner. She presented the case of deformed frogs in order to prove that harmed animals are simply indicators of impending harm to humans. She did a great job of featuring and subtly mocking some “expert” who rationalized why pesticide induced frog deformity cannot be extrapolated to humans. She did a great job of connecting what we input to the environment, the health of animals and plants, and the health of people. “Homo Toxicus” weaves together creative graphics, personal stories, and scientific facts to produce a compelling piece of environmental media.
Sources
Hayes, Tyrone. "Our World, Our Future." Atrazinelovers. Web. 25 Feb 2010. <http://www.atrazinelovers.com/m0.html>.
"Leading Causes of Death." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Web. 25 Feb 2010. <http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/FASTATS/lcod.htm>.
Syngenta United States. Web. 25 Feb 2010. <http://www.syngenta-us.com/home.aspx>.
none SavePreviewText Editor Help · About · Blog · Terms · Privacy · **Support** · [[space/subscribe/upgrade|Upgrade]]Contributions to http://sustainabilityproblems.wikispaces.com are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 3.0 License.
Portions not contributed by visitors are Copyright 2010 Tangient LLC.
Type in the content of your page here.